Which group of Lutherans to join.

[gtmyers]

I am debating on which to join. ELCA or LCMS. We have one LCMS here in town and several ELCA congregations. I have visited both and have a question. One is socially more conservative than the other and one has open communion and the other does not. Other than that, how are they the same or different?

[Melethiel]

*sits back and watches fireworks*

[PreachersWife2004]

They are not actually that similar. The ELCA is quite liberal in both its politics and its theology. ELCA allows gay and female pastors, while the LCMS does not allow either. ELCA has proclaimed fellowship with several church bodies who believe quite differently than Luther originally believed.

LCMS practices closed communion out of love for souls, not out of a desire to separate themselves from others. ELCA believes that all should be welcome at the communion table, whether the same belief of what that supper entails is present or not.

Both churches have issues, however the ELCA has long been separating itself more and more from mainstream Lutheranism. Unfortunately it garners the most press so that it seems as though the ELCA represents mainstream Lutheranism.

If you are looking for a church that is doctrinally and scripturally sound, consider LCMS (or WELS or ELS for that matter). If you are looking for a church that just might be telling you simply what you want to hear instead the law and gospel, then consider ELCA.

You can also check out www.elca.org or www.lcms.org. I bet DaRev and some other LCMSers and ELCAers will be able to answer this question better than I can.

Peace be with you as you decide which church to attend.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You can also check out www.elca.org (http://www.elca.org) or www.lcms.org (http://www.lcms.org). I bet DaRev and some other LCMSers and ELCAers will be able to answer this question better than I can.

You hit the main points without detonating any fireworks!:thumbsup:

Good Job!

Mark

[Melethiel]

If you are looking for a church that just might be telling you simply what you want to hear instead the law and gospel, then consider ELCA.
Although I'm sure that PW2004 didn't mean to imply that all ELCA churches tell you what you want to hear instead of law and gospel, or that you'll NEVER find an LCMS church that preaches fluff. In the end, it often boils down to individual parish.

[PreachersWife2004]

Although I'm sure that PW2004 didn't mean to imply that all ELCA churches tell you what you want to hear instead of law and gospel, or that you'll NEVER find an LCMS church that preaches fluff. In the end, it often boils down to individual parish.

Yes, I should've qualified that. Thanks, Mel.

[BabyLutheran]

Try them both. My congregation is ELCA, and I haven't seen a gay couple yet! lol

Seriously, I think there is a wide disparity in ELCA, and if you agree with the communion policy (which I do), but not with the other stuff some apparently believe in the ELCA, I am sure you can find a fairly conservative local body.

We even allow small children to commune at our church if they are baptized, the horror!

[TCat]

I began attending a local LCMS church first because it was close and my son was attending the school. I found that my soul was being fed in the Word and the Word was being preached in full without sugar coating, distortion or legalism. I saw the church being alive and active in outreach and service to the members and the community.

My father, who has encountered way to many LCMS pastors, was horrified to realize that we were attending an LCMS church and was quick to suggest the ELCA but I know that God has us here to learn and grow so here we stay. Dad has since come to church with us when he visits and likes our church very much.

Having attended many churches from various denominations I have to say that IMO the LCMS church I am in embodies what church is supposed to be about, the Word, the Sacrament, Worship, and learning to serve.

[IowaLutheran]

I think you would be much better off going to the churches in your town and worship with them and talk to their pastors and their members to make your decision.

[DaRev]

We even allow small children to commune at our church if they are baptized, the horror!

I won't bore you with the Scriptural reasons why that is unwise. The LCMS maintains the Scriptural mandates for proper and worthy reception of the Sacrament so that those who receive are not doing spiritual harm to themselves. That, to me, is the saddest aspect of open communion.

As for the OP, what Melethiel said is correct. There are exceptions in both church bodies. But if any of those issues (homosexuality, female clergy, formal fellowship with heterodox church bodies) concern you, it doesn't matter how conservative or traditional the ELCA congregation is. Those issues are still supported by them due to their affiliation with the ELCA church body. The individual congregation may not be dealing with those issues now, but there is nothing to stop them from changing. If those issues are of concern to you, it may become difficult for you personally and spiritually in the future.
I'm not saying that the LCMS is perfect. There are rogues in the midst of us as well. But such issues are much less likely to be of concern within the LCMS any time soon.

[Edial]

*sits back and watches fireworks*
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/FireExtinguisherABC.jpg/170px-FireExtinguisherABC.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FireExtinguisherABC.jpg)

[DaRev]

^_^

[Edial]

I do not agree in a context of a local congregations.
They are not actually that similar. The ELCA is quite liberal in both its politics and its theology.
Our ELCA congregation is conservative in theology.
Politics we do not get involved in.

ELCA allows gay and female pastors, while the LCMS does not allow either.
Our congregation is very much against the gay issue and we avoid to the best of our abilities to have a female pastor.

ELCA has proclaimed fellowship with several church bodies who believe quite differently than Luther originally believed.
Our congregation does not.

LCMS practices closed communion out of love for souls, not out of a desire to separate themselves from others. ELCA believes that all should be welcome at the communion table, whether the same belief of what that supper entails is present or not.
Our congregation does not. We telling people concerning the Lutheran beliefs concerning the communion and are asking people that do not believe in it to abstain.

Both churches have issues, however the ELCA has long been separating itself more and more from mainstream Lutheranism. Unfortunately it garners the most press so that it seems as though the ELCA represents mainstream Lutheranism.
Our congregation is as Lutheran as one would get in the context of the Scriptures and the Confessions.

If you are looking for a church that is doctrinally and scripturally sound, consider LCMS (or WELS or ELS for that matter). If you are looking for a church that just might be telling you simply what you want to hear instead the law and gospel, then consider ELCA.
Our congregation is solid in the context of the law and the gospel.

You can also check out www.elca.org (http://www.elca.org) or www.lcms.org (http://www.lcms.org). I bet DaRev and some other LCMSers and ELCAers will be able to answer this question better than I can.
I put my 2 cents in as an ELCAer.

Peace be with you as you decide which church to attend.
I guess what I am saying here is that a church is a local congregation where we worship together.
Synod is an organization.

One gets edified or destroyed by a local church (ELCA, or LCMS, or WELS), not a Synod. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

We even allow small children to commune at our church if they are baptized, the horror!
Well, at our ELCA congregation we do not commune children who do not understand what they are doing.

Pastor just blesses them when parents brings them to the altar.
And the kids love it when he places his hand on their hands and says a quick blessing with a smile on his face.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[DaRev]

I do not agree in a context of a local congregations.

Our ELCA congregation is conservative in theology.
Politics we do not get involved in.

Our congregation is very much against the gay issue and we avoid to the best of our abilities to have a female pastor.

Our congregation does not.

Our congregation does not. We telling people concerning the Lutheran beliefs concerning the communion and are asking people that do not believe in it to abstain.

Our congregation is as Lutheran as one would get in the context of the Scriptures and the Confessions.

Our congregation is solid in the context of the law and the gospel.

I put my 2 cents in as an ELCAer.

I guess what I am saying here is that a church is a local congregation where we worship together.
Synod is an organization.

One gets edified or destroyed by a local church (ELCA, or LCMS, or WELS), not a Synod. :)

Thanks,
Ed

Then why is your congregation still in full fellowship with a church body that it apparently disagrees with on every level?

[Edial]

I began attending a local LCMS church first because it was close and my son was attending the school. I found that my soul was being fed in the Word and the Word was being preached in full without sugar coating, distortion or legalism. I saw the church being alive and active in outreach and service to the members and the community.

My father, who has encountered way to many LCMS pastors, was horrified to realize that we were attending an LCMS church and was quick to suggest the ELCA but I know that God has us here to learn and grow so here we stay. Dad has since come to church with us when he visits and likes our church very much.

Having attended many churches from various denominations I have to say that IMO the LCMS church I am in embodies what church is supposed to be about, the Word, the Sacrament, Worship, and learning to serve.
Good for you. :)

[Edial]

Then why is your congregation still in full fellowship with a church body that it apparently disagrees with on every level?
What do you suggest then? To join LCMS or WELS?

We believe in the open communion among the believers who believe the same way concerning the elements.

[DaRev]

What do you suggest then? To join LCMS or WELS?

We believe in the open communion among the believers who believe the same way concerning the elements.

There's always becoming an independent.

[Edial]

There's always becoming an independent.
Well, I do not really know what this entails. You probably know more about this than I do.

What I do know is if our congregation will have unscriptural values imposed on us, many members will be very unhappy.

Our Christianity starts and ends with people we see each Sunday for worship and the messages we hear from the pulpit.

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

Well, I do not really know what this entails. You probably know more about this than I do.

What I do know is if our congregation will have unscriptural values imposed on us, many members will be very unhappy.

Our Christianity starts and ends with people we see each Sunday for worship and the messages we hear from the pulpit.

Thanks,
Ed

Well, I'm happy that your congregation holds the values that it does. :thumbsup:

[BabyLutheran]

I hate to tell you, but mainstream means accepted by the most people. So saying ELCA is not mainstream is illogical. The ELCA may be totally messed up, but it is "mainstream" Lutheranism.

BTW, just to clarify, children at my church are not just allowed to commune, they must attend a class to make sure they understand what and why they are doing it.

If the scripture concerning communion were so clear, we would all agree on it. This is one problem I had with Protestantism when I was searching: 3000 denominations all believing differently. The Bible is not easy to understand.

[MagnusEmboden]

I know of some pretty conservative ELCA congregations, ones I would have no difficulty joining as they stand.

What concerns me is that any bishop of that church who decides to make that congregation a "diversity project" can change it in a fairly short period of time.

Also, even the best ELCA churches have no "firewall" against an influx of new members who may or may not carry from bad to just plain wacky theology.

The LCMS, with all its problems, seems unlikely to go this way. The bloodletting in 1970 alone is probably enough to discourage any significant swing to the left and, from what I have seen, the younger leadership, while perhaps not always of sterling confessional commitment is nonetheless of a distinctly "evangelical" cast and seems pretty happy to remain with the status quo on bellwether issues like female ordination, homosexuality, etc.

That my church can't leave well enough alone and always has to be fiddling with things irritates me no end but I remain solidly confident that both pastors and all the elders take these things seriously as well.

[BigNorsk]

The basic differences would be how the Bible is viewed.

The LCMS holds the Bible to be without error.

The ELCA believes the Bible can contain errors, I think officially only in matters of science or history.

This is reflected in hermaneutics.
The LCMS uses the grammatico historical method. This focuses on the words and does it's best to understand the meaning of the words and passages in their context. This style of hermaneutic is restricted to the Bible for only scripture is God breathed.

The ELCA uses a style of higher criticism called historical critical. Higher criticism is the standard way of understanding old writings. The sources of what is written in a book is thereby thought to be the culture and surrounding cultures. Historical critical does not go as far as some other higher critical methods in that.

So I would say that an important consideration is your view on the bible and how it should be interpreted.

Another difference is church government. ELCA has an ecclesiastical form of government. The LCMS is congregational. You don't see that daily but does figure into things like in ELCA, unless your congregation was ALC, if you vote to leave, the synod actually controls the church property, they might let you have it but they don't have to. In LCMS the local congregation owns the property.

That's a couple that come to mind. Things that are pretty easy to kind of overlook.

Marv

[Zecryphon]

I do not agree in a context of a local congregations.

Our ELCA congregation is conservative in theology.
Politics we do not get involved in.


Our congregation is very much against the gay issue and we avoid to the best of our abilities to have a female pastor.


Our congregation does not.


Our congregation does not. We telling people concerning the Lutheran beliefs concerning the communion and are asking people that do not believe in it to abstain.


Our congregation is as Lutheran as one would get in the context of the Scriptures and the Confessions.


Our congregation is solid in the context of the law and the gospel.


I put my 2 cents in as an ELCAer.


I guess what I am saying here is that a church is a local congregation where we worship together.
Synod is an organization.

One gets edified or destroyed by a local church (ELCA, or LCMS, or WELS), not a Synod. :)

Thanks,
Ed
Ed,

would you consider your congregation to be the norm or the exception to the rule? I've always considered your congregation, based upon what you've said about them in the past, to be the exception rather than the norm.

[BabyLutheran]

From what I know of my new church, it sounds very similar to Ed's and it is ELCA.

I am wondering if the ultra liberal ELCA churches might be in California or something! lol

In fact maybe it stands for Evicted Lutherans of California in some cases...hehehehe

[LilLamb219]

There are a couple ELCA churches here in Indiana that are as conservative as the LCMS ones.

[DaRev]

If the scripture concerning communion were so clear, we would all agree on it. This is one problem I had with Protestantism when I was searching: 3000 denominations all believing differently. The Bible is not easy to understand.

That's the problem I have with open communion. Scripture is VERY clear when it comes to what the Sacrament is (the very body and blood of Christ) and what happens to those who receive unprepared and unworthy (committ sin, bring God's judgement). Based upon the ELCA's practice and teaching, they don't hold the Sacrament all that sacred. They don't require anyone to even believe in the real presence in order to receive it, thus there are a number of people sinning and bringing judgement upon themselves at open communion altars each week. I find this a sad situation. Open communion is a very unloving, uncaring practice.

[BabyLutheran]

I found an interesting counter view on this website. If it was so clear how come they believe the exact opposite? Are they stupid or what?

http://www.fishlakelutheran.org/firstcommunion.html

"Our Lutheran theology affirms that there are no prerequisites for the reception of the sacraments. They are not dependent upon one's age or faith. Nothing of one's own makes anyone a worthy recipient of either Holy Baptism or Holy Communion. In the sacraments God comes to the recipient. The one being baptized or communed receives the benefits of forgiveness, life, salvation, and faith through God's grace in the sacraments. We receive these benefits passively and respond to them actively through service to others. As our baptismal liturgy says, "Let your light so shine before others". This takes place through acts of love on the part of children as well as adults."

I can't understand how Lutherans believe so differently on this subject. I would say that I err on the side of providing Christ's blood and body to all who believe in him. It seems the argument for not communing children is the same as the other denominations use for denying baptism to infants, "they don't understand."

Sorry to derail the thread, maybe this should be moved to another thread of its own.

[DaRev]

They are wrong in that "there are no prerequisites for the reception of the Sacraments". Scripture indeed sets a prerequisite for the Lord's Supper.

1 Cor. 11:26-29 (ESV)
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. [28] Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. [29] For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Unprepared and unworthy reception of the Sacrament is spiritually harmful.

[BabyLutheran]

So, you are saying children are incapable of self examination, or discernment.

I would argue that it is sometimes easier for children to do so than adults

I do tend to agree with you about totally open communion however!

I am horrible at arguing, so don't shred me too badly...lol

Here is another pastor perspective that I found that I feel expresses my feelings to a T

http://www.clcfairbanks.org/About%20Worship.htm#children

"Based on Paul’s admonition in 1Corinthians, the church has long been concerned about people communing unworthily and so bringing condemnation on themselves (1Cor. 11:27-34). The conventional wisdom has been that a person needs to understand what the Lord’s Supper is all about before they commune or that they must be in agreement with the doctrines of the denomination.


As a pastor, this has always troubled me. How worthy are any of us? How much do any of us understand? What are we supposed to do with mentally challenged people or people suffering from dementia? How is it that a person receives the grace of God at baptism with no understanding but the same isn’t true of Holy Communion? But as a pastor, what troubles me most is what happens at the altar rail with small children who wish to receive communion but are denied. The Lord’s Table becomes not a place of love and inclusion but a place tears and dejection or even fights with parents. For this reason and because I can find no theological justification for denying children communion, with the Council’s concurrence I will begin communing children at whatever age their parents desire."

[DaRev]

So, you are saying children are incapable of self examination, or discernment.

I would argue that it is sometimes easier for children to do so than adults

They would need to be taught what to examine themselves for, which means they would need to understand what sin is. They would need to understand what the sacrament of the altar is, what it is they are receiving, and why. They need to be instructed in the faith so as to understand and discern false teachings. They are not incapable of it, but they do need to be instructed in what and how to do it.

The LCMS does allow congregations the ability to decode whether or not to commune children prior to being confirmed in the faith. To me, this does not jive with our present teaching and practice of close communion. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me the Biblical and practical principals that would allow such a practice. They may exist, it's just that no one has explained it to my satisfaction.

[BabyLutheran]

The passage referred to above sounds to me as if it is addressing individual participants,so to construct a set of rules excluding groups until they pass a test of some sort, an arbitrary age of reason, or 100% agreement in all doctrinal issues (other than true presence of course), etc. is not appropriate IMO. And more importantly, only God can truly know if any man, woman or child is complying with the conditions Paul is calling for!

Just my two cents, from an unworthy servant of Christ. Look at me, arguing Lutheran theology when I am hardly Lutheran yet. My apologies...

Peace and Christ's love to you, Da Rev!

[Zecryphon]

That's the problem I have with open communion. Scripture is VERY clear when it comes to what the Sacrament is (the very body and blood of Christ) and what happens to those who receive unprepared and unworthy (committ sin, bring God's judgement). Based upon the ELCA's practice and teaching, they don't hold the Sacrament all that sacred. They don't require anyone to even believe in the real presence in order to receive it, thus there are a number of people sinning and bringing judgement upon themselves at open communion altars each week. I find this a sad situation. Open communion is a very unloving, uncaring practice.
Do you think the people that are taking communion improperly are doing so willingly or are they doing it because the church has instructed them that the sacrament is nothing more than a bunch of symbols? I always had a problem with the symbolic view of Communion, even when I was in churches that taught it was symbolic and Christ was everywhere else in the church and our lives but absolutely not in Communion or Baptism.

[MagnusEmboden]

Isn't infant communion the doorway through which most Lutherans have gone into the Eastern Orthodox church?

Isn't it kind of a joke that it's the last thing to fall before the Pastor begins styling himself "Father" and growing his beard out?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am debating on which to join. ELCA or LCMS. We have one LCMS here in town and several ELCA congregations. I have visited both and have a question. One is socially more conservative than the other and one has open communion and the other does not. Other than that, how are they the same or different?
Are you talking about the congregations in your town or the LCMS vis-a-vis ELCA?

I can't say a thing about the congregations in your town...

The LCMS and ELCA are largely advisory at best. Neither practices open or closed communion (well, a few of their congregtions come close) - but some fuzzy line inbetween there - and both give considerable space to the pastoral care in that specific situation. The LCMS is officially pro-life and the ELCA is officially not, but in niether case is it doctrine or are members required to agree. The ELCA has a lot of mixed-messages about homosexuality, the LCMS is pretty clear on all that, but again, it's not dogma but usually issues of praxis.



.

[NordicLutheran]

Gtmeyers, The Missouri-Synod parish most likely reflects the theology of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. A sad reality is that it may not, but there is less of a chance of that happening because of the nature of the LCMS. With the ELCA you really cannot take into account the theology of the ELCA as a Church body, because there are so many variations within that one denomination. Take for instance the ELCA church in San Francisco that prays to the "goddess". The main body does not discipline each individual church as it should like most ELCA members on here have stated. The nature of the LCMS is simple. If a congregation agrees with the LCMS then it can become a member, but if it does not agree it leaves or is forced out. I would choose the LCMS or WELS over most of the churches in the ELCA because I value two things very deeply. I highly value an ancient liturgy, and the Sacrament of the Altar. Therefore I am LCMS.

[DaRev]

The passage referred to above sounds to me as if it is addressing individual participants,so to construct a set of rules excluding groups until they pass a test of some sort, an arbitrary age of reason, or 100% agreement in all doctrinal issues (other than true presence of course), etc. is not appropriate IMO. And more importantly, only God can truly know if any man, woman or child is complying with the conditions Paul is calling for!

While there is both the individual and confessional aspects of the Sacrament, the individual must be protected from spiritual harm when able. True, no pastor can know what is in the heart of an individual and can only go by what he or she confesses with their mouth and by their acts. But if a pastor does indeed know what that person believes and confesses (i.e. a Reformed view of the sacrament as strictly symbolic), or knows that the person is in a state of unrepentant sin, then it is the responsibility of the pastor as the one who is the called and ordained steward of the mysteries (sacraments) to prevent that individual from doing spiritual harm to themselves. What kind of pastor would knowingly allow someone to committ a sin and bring judgement upon themselves? Not one I would want in my church.

[BabyLutheran]

Agree with that 100%, but it has very little to do with the point I made.

[gtmyers]

Ah yes this question has opened up alot more than I had thought it would. Now I have alot more to think and pray about. Thanks so much for ALL of your input here. I will have to decide what is most important to me. I have come from a more conservative Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church so based on that it may have some influence on the direction I go. Blessings.

[DaRev]

Agree with that 100%, but it has very little to do with the point I made.

Actually, it does indeed.


And more importantly, only God can truly know if any man, woman or child is complying with the conditions Paul is calling for!


This is why Christ instituted the pastoral office. Paul, under inspiration, laid out the conditions, and Christ instituted the pastoral office to carry it out. Like I said, if a pastor knowingly allows one to receive the sacrament in such a way that would bring the recipient spiritual harm, he is not fulfilling that part of his call.

[Willy]

Actually, it does indeed.



This is why Christ instituted the pastoral office. Paul, under inspiration, laid out the conditions, and Christ instituted the pastoral office to carry it out. Like I said, if a pastor knowingly allows one to receive the sacrament in such a way that would bring the recipient spiritual harm, he is not fulfilling that part of his call.
Christ instituted the pastoral office? Wow! When and where did that take place? Jesus was a Jew who was used to sitting at the feet of rabbis and being a rabbi at whose feet many sat. As I hear and read the conversation going on in this forum I become convinced that the church will become increasingly irrelevant to the modern generation. These kinds of topics really don't resonate with people who really are desperate to discover if there is anything worth living for. The church's little internal battles about who should commune when really matters little to people who are struggling with life issues that are much more fundamental. Actually, the eucharist is the meal of hope that struggling people of all ages should be gathering around. We should be inviting despairing folks to this meal, instead of arguing about who is properly prepared for it.

[DaRev]

Christ instituted the pastoral office? Wow! When and where did that take place? Jesus was a Jew who was used to sitting at the feet of rabbis and being a rabbi at whose feet many sat. As I hear and read the conversation going on in this forum I become convinced that the church will become increasingly irrelevant to the modern generation. These kinds of topics really don't resonate with people who really are desperate to discover if there is anything worth living for. The church's little internal battles about who should commune when really matters little to people who are struggling with life issues that are much more fundamental. Actually, the eucharist is the meal of hope that struggling people of all ages should be gathering around. We should be inviting despairing folks to this meal, instead of arguing about who is properly prepared for it.

All despite God's clear command on the matter. Typical. :doh:

[Willy]

What I appreciate about the ELCA is its willingness to embrace scientific discovery, its openness to ecumenical relationships, its grasp of the practical character of justification by grace, its refusal to give in to an ideological understanding of faith. Frankly, it's fun to be a part of church that is not so doggone serious, one that knows that truth is not something that is the possession of one group of people, one that is deeply committed to justice for all of God's creation. That doesn't make Missouri Synod or Wisconsin people or congregations bad. It just means that I think that the difference we represent is a real breath of fresh air.

[Willy]

All despite God's clear command on the matter. Typical. :doh:
When did God give you that clear command?

[DaRev]

When did God give you that clear command?

Ever read the New Testament? There's a lot of good stuff in there.

[Willy]

Again, when did Christ institute the pastoral office?

[Melethiel]

Christ instituted the pastoral office? Wow! When and where did that take place? Jesus was a Jew who was used to sitting at the feet of rabbis and being a rabbi at whose feet many sat. As I hear and read the conversation going on in this forum I become convinced that the church will become increasingly irrelevant to the modern generation. These kinds of topics really don't resonate with people who really are desperate to discover if there is anything worth living for. The church's little internal battles about who should commune when really matters little to people who are struggling with life issues that are much more fundamental. Actually, the eucharist is the meal of hope that struggling people of all ages should be gathering around. We should be inviting despairing folks to this meal, instead of arguing about who is properly prepared for it.
I think I hate that word. "Relevancy". :sick: Let me tell you, growing up in churches that strived to be "relevant to the modern generation" was like wandering in a wasteland looking for an oasis.
The Church has stood for millenia - humans haven't suddenly become so different that we need to go about re-inventing the wheel.
Sure, despairing folks should be invited to the Eucharist - after they have been told the Gospel, been catechised, and Baptized.

[DaRev]

Again, when did Christ institute the pastoral office?

Ever read the New Testament? There's a lot of good stuff in there.

[Zecryphon]

Christ instituted the pastoral office? Wow! When and where did that take place? Jesus was a Jew who was used to sitting at the feet of rabbis and being a rabbi at whose feet many sat. As I hear and read the conversation going on in this forum I become convinced that the church will become increasingly irrelevant to the modern generation. These kinds of topics really don't resonate with people who really are desperate to discover if there is anything worth living for. The church's little internal battles about who should commune when really matters little to people who are struggling with life issues that are much more fundamental. Actually, the eucharist is the meal of hope that struggling people of all ages should be gathering around. We should be inviting despairing folks to this meal, instead of arguing about who is properly prepared for it.
Yeah, the biggest issue facing the church is really relevancy to the culture, isn't it? Please. If that's what you think, go grab a copy of the latest culture relevant nonsense from Rick Warren and Joel Osteen. I wish you well in finding your "purpose" in life and when you find your "purpose" then you can live "Your Best Life Now". Or if that's not good enough for you, there's always the emergent writings of Brian McLaren and Tony Jones who seek nothing more than to be relevant to today's post-modern society.

[PreachersWife2004]

When "culture" becomes more important than scripture, then you're preaching puff. And I sorely feel for those who are in congregations who think that the relevant stuff isn't the bible. They aren't getting the spiritual food they need.

[Zecryphon]

When "culture" becomes more important than scripture, then you're preaching puff. And I sorely feel for those who are in congregations who think that the relevant stuff isn't the bible. They aren't getting the spiritual food they need.
No they're not. But what do you expect when Rick Warren, who could be argued to be the second most influential evangelical pastor said in his Christmas sermon that the biggest problem people have in the church is feeling lonely. Couldn't be sin, could it? Nope, it's lonliness. If you're feeling lonely come to Jesus, He'll be your friend. Now that's a culturally relevant message the church should get behind, right? :sick: :help:

[BabyLutheran]

"The Church has stood for millenia - humans haven't suddenly become so different that we need to go about re-inventing the wheel"

I guess we should be glad Luther didn't accept that logic.

We always change the church at least a little to meet the needs of the current generations. Music, etc. How often do you hear old timers say something about the new hymns. They want to go back to the traditional hymns from the 1800's and early 1900's. And the people in the 1800's probably complained that they should be singing the traditional hymns from the 1700's...lol

Keep the essentials like the Eucharist, the Trinity, etc, unchanging, the rest is all cultural.

BTW I do agree about Rick Warren and those kind of churches. That's what I fled several years back. 45 minute rock concert followed by a self help lecture. Thank God I found the Lutheran church finally, where even the heathens in the ELCA at least hear the Bible read during the service and the hymns actually have a little theology in them..

I just like being a fly in the ointment about blanket statements, it's fun!

[DaRev]

Thank God I found the Lutheran church finally, where even the heathens in the ELCA at least hear the Bible read during the service and the hymns actually have a little theology in them..


I hope I didn't contribute to your thinking that the LCMS feels that the ELCA is heathen. (I probably did. I can get pretty anxious in defending my church sometimes. :sorry:) Much of what the ELCA "officially" holds to is not an historic Lutheran understanding of things. The ELCA is a conglomeration of several Lutheran traditions, some of which tend to be more orthodox than others. I personally know many ELCA congregation members, and even some pastors, who are quite orthodox in their understanding of things, and a few of them are regular posters on this board.

I know that it may also look like the LCMS members here are "beating up" on the ELCA, and it may be true at times. But the opposite is also true. The LCMS has been regularly put down and belittled by many on here for our teaching and practice of close communion, among other things. But like any family, siblings bicker and quarrel over many things.

The bottom line, BL, is that I truly rejoice along with you that you have found a seemingly sound Lutheran congregation where you are heaing the Gospel preached and are receiving our Lord's sacraments. And my our God and Savior continue to bless you in your faith journey.

[DaRev]

"The Church has stood for millenia - humans haven't suddenly become so different that we need to go about re-inventing the wheel"

I guess we should be glad Luther didn't accept that logic.

Actually, Luther did indeed operate under that logic as far as the Church is concerned. Rome was "re-inventing the wheel" while Luther fought to bring the Church back to what it had been and stood for for centuries before.

[BabyLutheran]

I hope I didn't contribute to your thinking that the LCMS feels that the ELCA is heathen. (I probably did. I can get pretty anxious in defending my church sometimes. :sorry:) Much of what the ELCA "officially" holds to is not an historic Lutheran understanding of things. The ELCA is a conglomeration of several Lutheran traditions, some of which tend to be more orthodox than others. I personally know many ELCA congregation members, and even some pastors, who are quite orthodox in their understanding of things, and a few of them are regular posters on this board.

I know that it may also look like the LCMS members here are "beating up" on the ELCA, and it may be true at times. But the opposite is also true. The LCMS has been regularly put down and belittled by many on here for our teaching and practice of close communion, among other things. But like any family, siblings bicker and quarrel over many things.

The bottom line, BL, is that I truly rejoice along with you that you have found a seemingly sound Lutheran congregation where you are heaing the Gospel preached and are receiving our Lord's sacraments. And my our God and Savior continue to bless you in your faith journey.
No problem, I am new to it all, it just seems strange to me that there is so much seeming acrimony.

There is a real opportunity for the Lutheran church of both synods to really be a beacon. I really feel in my soul that people are getting tired of the "relevant" junk, and want to go to real church again. The old-fashioned liturgy, hymns and vestments are what people are starting to hunger for again.

I guess I need to be in the family a while longer to get used to the fighting and realize it's not the end of the world.

[NordicLutheran]

What I appreciate about the ELCA is its willingness to embrace scientific discovery, its openness to ecumenical relationships, its grasp of the practical character of justification by grace, its refusal to give in to an ideological understanding of faith. Frankly, it's fun to be a part of church that is not so doggone serious, one that knows that truth is not something that is the possession of one group of people, one that is deeply committed to justice for all of God's creation. That doesn't make Missouri Synod or Wisconsin people or congregations bad. It just means that I think that the difference we represent is a real breath of fresh air.
Wow really? The Lord is the first and the last and will always be. I'm sorry that I flock to a "serious" Church as you put it. I mean it's not like people have died for Christianity or anything, that would be taking it too serious. No?

[NordicLutheran]

No problem, I am new to it all, it just seems strange to me that there is so much seeming acrimony.

There is a real opportunity for the Lutheran church of both synods to really be a beacon. I really feel in my soul that people are getting tired of the "relevant" junk, and want to go to real church again. The old-fashioned liturgy, hymns and vestments are what people are starting to hunger for again.

I guess I need to be in the family a while longer to get used to the fighting and realize it's not the end of the world.
As a Church we try to model ourselves around what Jesus wanted. If we let society dictate what we should be, we end up with a church like Rick Warren's, and to a minor degree, the contemporary services used by the Lutheran Church.

[BabyLutheran]

As a Church we try to model ourselves around what Jesus wanted. If we let society dictate what we should be, we end up with a church like Rick Warren's, and to a minor degree, the contemporary services used by the Lutheran Church.
So what's the cutoff.. Any hymn after 1950 is outlawed, 1900, 1850, 1800...? Should we use thee and thou, eth on the end of words, etc?

Contemporary language can be good, it doesn't automatically make it bad. Now, using gender neutral pronouns is not right, imo, but contemporary language is ok.

I am just into being difficult today, can't figure out why! I must have drunk too much coffee or something. Or maybe I just like to argue. I should have been a lawyer.

[LutheranChick]

We always change the church at least a little to meet the needs of the current generations. Music, etc. How often do you hear old timers say something about the new hymns. They want to go back to the traditional hymns from the 1800's and early 1900's. And the people in the 1800's probably complained that they should be singing the traditional hymns from the 1700's...lol



Actually, just to let you know, we in the ELS still sing all the old traditional hymns. That is entirely what our hymnal consists of. We don't feel the need to 'reinvent the wheel' in this either. The traditional hymns are so rich and full of God's Word- each one is like a little sermonette. Singing them really helps to strengthen one's faith.

[BabyLutheran]

Actually, just to let you know, we in the ELS still sing all the old traditional hymns. That is entirely what our hymnal consists of. We don't feel the need to 'reinvent the wheel' in this either. The traditional hymns are so rich and full of God's Word- each one is like a little sermonette. Singing them really helps to strengthen one's faith.
But I bet when that hymnal was written, some people grumbled that it was too modern! lol

I deep down like the old stuff too. I just think some good stuff is being written now too.

Not the "I am a Friend of God" stuff though. So vapid and pointless.

[Edial]

...What concerns me is that any bishop of that church who decides to make that congregation a "diversity project" can change it in a fairly short period of time.
That's true.

We have an Assisting Pastor who is a seminary student. We also support him monetarily. Our Pastor will retire when time comes. He is in ministry for 50 years. We had requested Bishop Bauman to assure us that this seminary student be assigned to our congregation when he completes his studies.
He said "yes", BUT we still do not have it in writing.
And, I understand that Bishop Bauman will move on elsewhere. So ... we'll see.

...Also, even the best ELCA churches have no "firewall" against an influx of new members who may or may not carry from bad to just plain wacky theology.
That is also true.
However, such people usually do not stay when the sermons and the general understanding of the congregation do not agree with them.

I am not too concerned about these things as long as our Pastor there. But when he retires ... we'll see what happens.

Thanks,
Ed

[LutheranChick]

But I bet when that hymnal was written, some people grumbled that it was too modern! lol

I deep down like the old stuff too. I just think some good stuff is being written now too.

Not the "I am a Friend of God" stuff though. So vapid and pointless.

Well of course anytime there is a new edition there will be people that grumble about the change. We had a new hymnal printed back in the 90's and some don't like it- but not because there are too many 'modern' songs (of which there are none) but some didn't like which tunes were used for the hymns. What I was trying to point out is that we at the ELS have never felt the need to 'update' our hymns, or liturgy in order to 'keep with the times', or 'meet the needs of today's people'. Our services meet the spiritual needs of any generation- young and old alike.

[Edial]

Ed,

would you consider your congregation to be the norm or the exception to the rule? I've always considered your congregation, based upon what you've said about them in the past, to be the exception rather than the norm.

When there was this vote few years back concerning allowing practicing homosexual people to becomes pastors or something to that effect, it did not pass ... not by much, but still did not pass.

From this I understand that the majority of ELCA congregations are conservative or moderate.

[BabyLutheran]

Well of course anytime there is a new edition there will be people that grumble about the change. We had a new hymnal printed back in the 90's and some don't like it- but not because there are too many 'modern' songs (of which there are none) but some didn't like which tunes were used for the hymns. What I was trying to point out is that we at the ELS have never felt the need to 'update' our hymns, or litergy in order to 'keep with the times', or 'meet the needs of today's people'. Our services meet the spiritual needs of any generation- young and old alike.
Point taken.

[Edial]

That's the problem I have with open communion. Scripture is VERY clear when it comes to what the Sacrament is (the very body and blood of Christ) and what happens to those who receive unprepared and unworthy (committ sin, bring God's judgement). Based upon the ELCA's practice and teaching, they don't hold the Sacrament all that sacred. They don't require anyone to even believe in the real presence in order to receive it, thus there are a number of people sinning and bringing judgement upon themselves at open communion altars each week. I find this a sad situation. Open communion is a very unloving, uncaring practice.
I am certain if you just take a poll of ELCAers here you would see that in their local congregations it is taught accurately concerning the sacraments.
I do not know what you mean by saying "they don't hold the Sacrament all that sacred".
We do not worship it. I do not think you do either.

As long as the open communion is generally preceded by a clear statement of what it is and who it is for, it is definitely proper.
Judgement is left to God and to a person himself and his motives of the heart when he approaches.

We are not there to "protect" the sacraments. We are there to proclaim what we believe they are and to distribute.

Besides, even if a Pastor speaks with a person beforehand in order to understand if a person is worthy, anyone can lie to the Pastor if his motives are impure.

The disciples did not understand MANY deep things that Christ said until after the resurrection, when Holy Spirit came.
There is a notable exception. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, Christ appeared to be surprised and said "This was revealed to you by the Father".

I do not think the disciples really understood Christ what he meants when he said "This is my body". We see some of it in John 6. Especially when to a Jew it was forgidden to eat blood.

Open communion is proper.
We do our duty in telling what it is and it is up to God to examine the motives of the heart.

And, as you know, I do not agree with closed communion. I see it to be (in today's context) tainted with politics.
I am certain closed communion could be used properly.
However, from what I see it somehow evolved into not having fellowship with another brother from another synod while citing the Roman verse where it states that one must be separate from heretics, or whatever.

Makes no sense.

Thanks,
Ed

[BabyLutheran]

"They don't require anyone to even believe in the real presence in order to receive it."

We do say that it is the real presence before it is served, and pastor even says it is required that you believe it to partake, but we don't have a polygraph to ask each partaker if they really believe it is the real presence. I don't know what more we could be doing without being very forward and belligerent.

[Edial]

... It seems the argument for not communing children is the same as the other denominations use for denying baptism to infants, "they don't understand."
...


The point is not really in that they do not understand, it is that to them it is not important.

About 12 years ago my niece made a stunnung statement. She was little and was being taken to the Armenian Orthodox Church for Sunday School.
We were at our aunt's house and we had breakfast. One of the toasts burned.

She said: "Look, the body of Christ is burned".

She not only did not understand what she said, but it was also a careless statement a child would make.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

What I appreciate about the ELCA is its willingness to embrace scientific discovery, its openness to ecumenical relationships, its grasp of the practical character of justification by grace, its refusal to give in to an ideological understanding of faith. Frankly, it's fun to be a part of church that is not so doggone serious, one that knows that truth is not something that is the possession of one group of people, one that is deeply committed to justice for all of God's creation. That doesn't make Missouri Synod or Wisconsin people or congregations bad. It just means that I think that the difference we represent is a real breath of fresh air.
The Bible does not "forbid" to do all these you mentioned.
ELCA forgot her roots - the Bible.

[DaRev]

"They don't require anyone to even believe in the real presence in order to receive it."

We do say that it is the real presence before it is served, and pastor even says it is required that you believe it to partake, but we don't have a polygraph to ask each partaker if they really believe it is the real presence. I don't know what more we could be doing without being very forward and belligerent.

The reason I said that is because the ELCA is in full altar/pulpit fellowship with the Presbyterian Church USA, the Reformed Church of America, and the United Church of Christ. Altar/pulpit fellowship means that pastors from any of those church bodies can preside over the service in any of those church bodies. A Presbyterian or UCC pastor can preside over the divine service in an ELCA church. It also means that members of those church bodies may openly receive communion in each other's churches.

The problem with this is that the Presbyterians, the RCA, and the UCC reject the real presence of the Lord's body and blood in the Sacrament. They teach it is strictly symbolic. Thus, the ELCA, as an official position of the church body, does not require anyone to believe in the real presence in order to commune in an ELCA congregation.

I would be interested to know whether or not one of these conservative ELCA congregations who insist on recognizing the real presence, has ever not allowed a visiting Presbyterian or UCC member from communion. I doubt very highly that they would since their church bodies are in full altar fellowship. But I would be interested to know if any of them have.

[PreachersWife2004]

Just a minor point: closed communion isn't about protecting the sacraments, it's about protecting those who partake of it. The bible is clear about not taking the Lord's Supper to our detriment.

[BabyLutheran]

The point is not really in that they do not understand, it is that to them it is not important.

About 12 years ago my niece made a stunnung statement. She was little and was being taken to the Armenian Orthodox Church for Sunday School.
We were at our aunt's house and we had breakfast. One of the toasts burned.

She said: "Look, the body of Christ is burned".

She not only did not understand what she said, but it was also a careless statement a child would make.

Thanks,
Ed
My point is, it should not be an arbitrary cutoff age, some kids are the way you mentioned, and some are wise beyond their years. My sons were both smarter than I am now when they were 9 or 10 years old.

Case by case I say! But I am probably wrong.

[LutheranChick]

My point is, it should not be an arbitrary cutoff age, some kids are the way you mentioned, and some are wise beyond their years. My sons were both smarter than I am now when they were 9 or 10 years old.

Case by case I say! But I am probably wrong.
This is why I believe children should be instructed in the Catechism before being allowed to partake in communion. Because the Pastor instructs the children, he has the ability to determine when the children are ready - and generally after 2 years (in our church) of confirmation they are ready to partake in communion, as they have a thorough understanding of Lutheran teachings and beliefs.

My stepdaughter is 14 and not ready yet - probably won't be for another year. So, rather than making it difficult for the Pastor to have to judge every kid individually as to whether they have a proper understanding when they go to Communion- why NOT have an arbritary age- (even then, subject to Pastor's discretion) and formal confirmation classes? The children still have received forgiveness of sins in the regular church service before they are able to partake of communion, so they are not being harmed by waiting.

[BabyLutheran]

I give, I give!

We could discuss this forever and none of us would ever change our minds...lol

Is it a common trait of Lutherans to be hardheaded? Because I certainly am.

[Edial]

My point is, it should not be an arbitrary cutoff age, some kids are the way you mentioned, and some are wise beyond their years. My sons were both smarter than I am now when they were 9 or 10 years old.

Case by case I say! But I am probably wrong.
I agree with you.

And I would also agree that some kids are much smarter and mature than some adults.
When I was a teenager and before, the only thing I thought was girls, friends, going out, booze, in that order.

What I see today in young people amazes me.

Mel (Melethiel) definitely scares me. At 17 she is like ... finishing college or something.

When I finally got in a 2-year community college in my 20s ... it took me 6 years of girls, friends, going out and booze to realize that I cannot graduate. :)

It took Christ to shake me out of this when I was 30. :)

[LutheranChick]

I give, I give!

We could discuss this forever and none of us would ever change our minds...lol

Is it a common trait of Lutherans to be hardheaded? Because I certainly am.
We do hold to our beliefs! Guess I was brought up to never compromise my faith. The communion thing- well, that's just my opinion. I think (not positive) that there are WELS congregations that allow children to take communion before they are confirmed- it's not like I'm going to break fellowship with someone who doesn't agree on something like that- not when there are REAL issues of concern within the church.

However I love a lively discusion! :)

[BabyLutheran]

On the communion, it makes me feel funny. I got a free pass on all the confirmation and stuff like that just because I am an adult.

I love taking communion, I wish we had a communion service every day!

[Edial]

On the communion, it makes me feel funny. I got a free pass on all the confirmation and stuff like that just because I am an adult.

I love taking communion, I wish we had a communion service every day!
I like taking communion when we meet, weekly.

Some in our congregation think it is too often and could become frivolous to some, so they take it monthly at the earlier service.

There are also some that take it once a year.
This I cannot understand.:pray:

[BabyLutheran]

Our church does it at both services every Sunday, it is one reason I even ventured to visit it. The ones that said every other week on their website, I crossed them immediately off my list.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is it a common trait of Lutherans to be hardheaded? Because I certainly am.

:preach:Yes: You can tell us a long ways off, but you can't tell us nuthin up close!:D^_^:D

[BabyLutheran]

:preach:Yes: You can tell us a long ways off, but you can't tell us nuthin up close!:D^_^:D
I am gonna fit in like a lifelong Lutheran then! lol

[Jim47]

From what I know of my new church, it sounds very similar to Ed's and it is ELCA.

I am wondering if the ultra liberal ELCA churches might be in California or something! lol

In fact maybe it stands for Evicted Lutherans of California in some cases...hehehehe


I live in lower Michigan, and there is an ELCA church not more then 2 miles from my house where the Pastor doesn't believe in the creation account or even that Jesus is really God or our Savior.

[BreadAlone]

ELCA is pretty much farther away from confessional Lutheranism than the baptists and pentecostals are..so if your looking for LUTHERANISM, I'd go with LCMS.

(Oh no! I just endorsed the Missouri Synod!! I may be excommunicated now!! ^_^ )

[Melethiel]

"The Church has stood for millenia - humans haven't suddenly become so different that we need to go about re-inventing the wheel"

I guess we should be glad Luther didn't accept that logic.

We always change the church at least a little to meet the needs of the current generations. Music, etc. How often do you hear old timers say something about the new hymns. They want to go back to the traditional hymns from the 1800's and early 1900's. And the people in the 1800's probably complained that they should be singing the traditional hymns from the 1700's...lol

Keep the essentials like the Eucharist, the Trinity, etc, unchanging, the rest is all cultural.

BTW I do agree about Rick Warren and those kind of churches. That's what I fled several years back. 45 minute rock concert followed by a self help lecture. Thank God I found the Lutheran church finally, where even the heathens in the ELCA at least hear the Bible read during the service and the hymns actually have a little theology in them..

I just like being a fly in the ointment about blanket statements, it's fun!



I think you missed my point actually. The trappings of the service - music, specific wording and language, architecture - they do change with the culture and the times. This is natural - that is why we have differing traditions throughout and history and geography. However, these should be allowed to change organically as the culture absorbs Christianity, not the other way around, changing the Church to match popular culture. As far as Luther goes though - he was actually rebelling against the innovations of the Roman church, and seeking to return the Church back to its roots.

However, the message should never be changed. The Gospel is relevant no matter when or where it is - a "relevant" Gospel Rick Warren style is no Gospel at all.

[Melethiel]

ELCA is pretty much farther away from confessional Lutheranism than the baptists and pentecostals are..so if your looking for LUTHERANISM, I'd go with LCMS.

(Oh no! I just endorsed the Missouri Synod!! I may be excommunicated now!! ^_^ )
I grew up Bapticostal. The ELCA (as long as you stay away from the REALLY weird and liberal parishes - which aren't really that common, they just get more press) is still FAR more Lutheran than a Baptist.

[BabyLutheran]

Yeah, believer's baptism, deciding for Christ, and communion as a symbol and quarterly at best.

No reciting of the creeds either.

Baptists are not within a light year of Lutheran theology, IMO

[Edial]

Yeah, believer's baptism, deciding for Christ, and communion as a symbol and quarterly at best.

No reciting of the creeds either.

Baptists are not within a light year of Lutheran theology, IMO
In all fairness Baptists have some other good qualities that we do not.

The other things you mentioned, I agree with you except the "believer's baptism".
The NT has many examples when people are baptized after they believed.

[Melethiel]

Lutherans also baptize adults - we just have a habit of using "believer's baptism" as synonymous with the symbolic, non-regenerational view of Baptism held by the Baptists.

[BabyLutheran]

I guess I meant they are adamantly against infant baptism.

[Zecryphon]

I guess I meant they are adamantly against infant baptism.
A position which I've never understood. I go back to Matthew 28:19-20 and look at what Christ said. Since He did not specify an age for baptism, I don't see how churches or individuals can.

[BabyLutheran]

"you have to understand why..."

"you have to get saved first..."

"it's not really necessary, it's just a response to being saved..."

Dare I go on?

[Zecryphon]

"you have to understand why..."

"you have to get saved first..."

"it's not really necessary, it's just a response to being saved..."

Dare I go on?
You can go on, and I've heard all those excuses before and am now relying upon the words of Christ. He said baptize the nations. To me that means everybody in a nation, which includes infants. He never said baptize only those in the nations who have been saved, have understood why, and are old enough to know it's a response to being saved.

[BabyLutheran]

I am with you there, Brother!

That's what I fled from.

[Zecryphon]

I am with you there, Brother!

That's what I fled from.
Yeah me too. That and a whole lot more.

[Zecryphon]

But I bet when that hymnal was written, some people grumbled that it was too modern! lol

I deep down like the old stuff too. I just think some good stuff is being written now too.

Not the "I am a Friend of God" stuff though. So vapid and pointless.
Here are some songs that hopefully will not be coming to a church near you or worse yet your church. Here are the songs of the lukewarm or culturally relevant church.

1. Blest Be the Tie That Doesn't Cramp My Style

2. Pillow of Ages, Fluffed For Me

3. I Surrender Some

4. I'm Fairly Certain That My Redeemer Lives

5. Sit Up, Sit Up For Jesus

6. Take My Life and Let Me Be

7. What an Acquaintance We Have in Jesus

8. Where He Leads Me, I Will Consider Following

9. He's Quite a Bit To Me

10. Oh, How I Like Jesus

11. Fill My Spoon, Lord

12. It Is My Secret What God Can Do

- taken from: http://www.wayofthemaster.com/songofthelukewarm.shtml

[BabyLutheran]

Those are really good!

The ones that say Jesus or God in the title, shouldn't it be the phrase greatest conceivable being, instead?

My son's philosophy class was told to use that phrase instead of God in papers. The prof didn't count off if you didn't comply however.

[porterross]

Those are really good!

The ones that say Jesus or God in the title, shouldn't it be the phrase greatest conceivable being, instead?

My son's philosophy class was told to use that phrase instead of God in papers. The prof didn't count off if you didn't comply however.

:scratch: What kind of school is that?! :eek:

My daughter's science teachers don't believe in evolution. ^_^ In fact, their Biology teacher has a PhD in archeology and he's a lay preacher. :thumbsup: I love west Texas. ;)

[BabyLutheran]

:scratch: What kind of school is that?! :eek:

My daughter's science teachers don't believe in evolution. ^_^ In fact, their Biology teacher has a PhD in archeology and he's a lay preacher. :thumbsup: I love west Texas. ;)
University of Virginia, one of the best public universities in the land! My son says it is offensive to Jewish people to say God, so the professor told them to try and avoid it.

I am not sure if saying or writing the word God is offensive to Jews or not, never learned that.

[Zecryphon]

University of Virginia, one of the best public universities in the land! My son says it is offensive to Jewish people to say God, so the professor told them to try and avoid it.

I am not sure if saying or writing the word God is offensive to Jews or not, never learned that.
They do consider it offensive. Jews on message boards will usually do this: G-d or some variation thereof.

[Zecryphon]

Those are really good!

The ones that say Jesus or God in the title, shouldn't it be the phrase greatest conceivable being, instead?

My son's philosophy class was told to use that phrase instead of God in papers. The prof didn't count off if you didn't comply however.
Well that phrase would probably be better but there's two problems with it. One, no one can conceive of God with our finite human minds. Of course they'll never admit that in a philosophy class and second, whatever you conceive God to be with your mind, will be an idol you've created, so idolatry is the other danger.

[BabyLutheran]

So I guess it wasn't so radical leftist after all!

They were told to use the abbreviation GCB (greatest conceivable being) instead of God, so it wasn't any extra writing anyway! lol

[BabyLutheran]

Well, if we can't conceive of him then how do we have a religion?

[DaRev]

So I guess it wasn't so radical leftist after all!

They were told to use the abbreviation GCB (greatest conceivable being) instead of God, so it wasn't any extra writing anyway! lol

I'd be damned if I let anyone try telling me I had to be "poltically correct" about writing the word "God" on anything. I'd like to see them try and stop me. Liberal nutcases!!

[RadMan]

I agree. That and prying something out of my cold dead hands.

[Zecryphon]

Well, if we can't conceive of him then how do we have a religion?
When I use the phrase "conceive of God" I mean we know what God looks like. I don't know what God looks like in a physical form. Don't need to though, to be a Christian. So I'm fine with that.